I really hate how loosely the term "robbed" is thrown around, but I'm pretty sure Tom Lawlor got robbed that night. I may have to watch the fight a second time though.

First round I thought was a pretty clear 10-8 for Lawlor. Granted he didn't take and hold mount the whole time, but he was beating Simpson like nuts. Simpson is a seriously tough guy for being able to come back from that.

Second round was very close, but I thought Lawlor edged it out. I can see an argument for Simpson taking it.

Third round was fairly hard fought, but definitely Simpson 10-9.

Even assuming Simpson took round two, wouldn't that still make it a draw? Are the judges that terrified to give a 10-8 round, or scared to call a draw? Maybe I'm just wrong about the first round.

I really hate how loosely the term "robbed" is thrown around, but I'm pretty sure Tom Lawlor got robbed that night. I may have to watch the fight a second time though.

First round I thought was a pretty clear 10-8 for Lawlor. Granted he didn't take and hold mount the whole time, but he was beating Simpson like nuts. Simpson is a seriously tough guy for being able to come back from that.

Second round was very close, but I thought Lawlor edged it out. I can see an argument for Simpson taking it.

Third round was fairly hard fought, but definitely Simpson 10-9.

Even assuming Simpson took round two, wouldn't that still make it a draw? Are the judges that terrified to give a 10-8 round, or scared to call a draw? Maybe I'm just wrong about the first round.

I also had Lawlor winning that fight, as I felt he won rounds 1 and 2. However, I'm not sure if I would call it a robbery. Really, since judges pretty much never give 10-8 rounds (except for point deductions) I usually assume it's going to just be 10-9. I really wish they would just define a 10-8 round more clearly at some point.

I really hate how loosely the term "robbed" is thrown around, but I'm pretty sure Tom Lawlor got robbed that night. I may have to watch the fight a second time though.

First round I thought was a pretty clear 10-8 for Lawlor. Granted he didn't take and hold mount the whole time, but he was beating Simpson like nuts. Simpson is a seriously tough guy for being able to come back from that.

Second round was very close, but I thought Lawlor edged it out. I can see an argument for Simpson taking it.

Third round was fairly hard fought, but definitely Simpson 10-9.

Even assuming Simpson took round two, wouldn't that still make it a draw? Are the judges that terrified to give a 10-8 round, or scared to call a draw? Maybe I'm just wrong about the first round.

I agree with this.

As for the main event, they both really looked bad. Maynard had shown pretty tight and decent boxing in previous fights, but went straight back to the wind-up-right-hand from early in his career. Also, for a guy with such a big right hand, why not GO TO THE BODY WITH A STRAIGHT RIGHT when Diaz holds his arm out and paws like that? Why Gray, WHY?

Diaz/Maynard was an embarrassment for the 155 lb division. These are the top contenders? Diaz with his twisting looping punches that have 0 power behind them. Whoever the trainer is that taught the Diaz brothers how to box should be fired. And Maynard may as well not even had a left hand. Then to highlight their lack of skill they bring in all the gesturing and posturing. This fight was a complete disgrace...one of the worst I've ever seen.

Diaz/Maynard was an embarrassment for the 155 lb division. These are the top contenders? Diaz with his twisting looping punches that have 0 power behind them. Whoever the trainer is that taught the Diaz brothers how to box should be fired. And Maynard may as well not even had a left hand. Then to highlight their lack of skill they bring in all the gesturing and posturing. This fight was a complete disgrace...one of the worst I've ever seen.

In regards to Nick you're way off base. What he does may not be what you're used to seeing but it is very effective:

I would have preferred to put a gif of him versus scott smith and one of his close to ten hit combos that eventually crumbled smith, one of the most resilient fighters around, and led to an rnc.

Nick's boxing is close to perfect for what he uses it for. The only real legitimate criticism is that he relies a lot on his chin.

Watch the video posted above from 3:10-3:30 during the second round where nick can't land a punch on a winded, injured, next to motionless Frank Shamrock. Aside from that, Frank out boxed Nick for the first round. Nick threw way more punches and Frank landed a higher %. The only reason Nick won that fight is because Frank was out of shape and got winded. Shamrock is clearly the better boxer.
As for Diaz/ Smith...Smith decided to use his forhead as a range finder so he could land the KO punch on Diaz. Smith was doing absolutely nothing to avoid those ten punch combos and somehow Diaz still managed not to connect with most of them, which is his specialty. Watch the Gomi fight where Gomi slowly walks backwards with his hands at his side and Diaz still can't connect.

Saying Diaz's boxing has only one real legitimate criticism is ridiculous. That would make Diaz the best boxer on the planet. How about the fact that he throws his jab from a fully extended arm or that he stands with his arms spread wide apart. If he ever meets an MMA fighter who knows how to throw straight punches instead of this looping bull **** that we see, he will get torn up. Scott Smith started to use this against him and then for some reason decided it was working too well and abandoned it.

If you want to say Nick is a decent boxer for an MMA fighter, I'll give you that. But if he would ever get matched up against even a low level pro boxer he would get owned.

The Diaz brother's boxing style may usually be unorthodox but effective - but I didn't see much of it in the Maynard fight, which was just horrible. And boring. Both of these guys would be slaughtered so bad by B.J., it wouldn't even be funny.

There are no wrong threats, only wrong answers. (Strategy game truism)